Two unmarried daughters and a son of senior citizen in 2014 had moved the trial court for maintenance from their father.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that adult, unmarried daughters who are physically and mentally capable are not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 488 of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with maintenance for wives and children (Abdul Raheem Bhat (Senior Citizen) v. Beauty Jan and Others).
Justice Rahul Bharti delivered the verdict while hearing a petition filed by a senior citizen challenging an order by the Judicial Magistrate, which directed him to pay ₹1,200 each as monthly maintenance to his two adult, unmarried daughters.
“A bare perusal of Section 488 would show that the two unmarried daughters of the petitioner, being of major age but suffering no physical/mental abnormality or injury rendering them unable to maintain themselves, were not supposed to invoke Section 488 CrPC by any stretch of claim or reasoning,” the Court said.
In 2014, two unmarried daughters and a son of the senior citizen had approached the trial court, seeking maintenance from their father. However, in 2019, the court granted maintenance only to the daughters.
Interestingly, the senior citizen had also filed a separate plea seeking maintenance from his son, which was allowed in 2017, directing the son to pay ₹2,000 per month.
The High Court, while holding that the daughters were not entitled to maintenance, observed that the lower courts had failed to consider this vital point. As a result, Justice Bharti found the Magistrate’s order to be flawed and set it aside.
“The petition is allowed,” the Court stated.
You May Also Like:
Hindu Marriage Act 1955 
‘Daughters Are Daughters Forever, Sons Are Sons Till They Are Married’: Bombay HC Upholds Direction Under Senior Citizens Act To Son To Vacate Flat Of Elderly Parents 
Delhi High Court Grants Eviction of Son & Daughter-in-Law, Upholding Legal and Moral Duty to Provide for Elderly Mother 
Senior Citizens’ Right to Peace Prevails Over Daughter-In-Law’s Right to Reside in Shared Household Under DV Act in Cases of Harsh Ill-Treatment